"If that attitude spreads, it will damage our society. "

Share this story

Media coverage of Mozilla and its Firefox Web browser over the past week has largely focused on new CEO Brendan Eich and his 2008 opposition to gay marriage (in the form of a $1,000 donation to California's Prop 8 campaign). Yesterday, Eich resigned from Mozilla, and Mozilla has had plenty of support for letting Eich leave.

But it's a new day, and that means it's the turn of more conservative or libertarian thinkers and activists to bash Mozilla. Some are even calling for boycotts of the Firefox browser in campaigns that mirror those of sites like OKCupid, which encouraged users of its dating site to ditch Firefox as a way of pressuring Mozilla to distance itself from Eich.

Andrew Sullivan, the Daily Dish blogger and book author who has done as much as anyone over the last decade to make "marriage equality" a term that even conservatives can love, ripped Mozilla for not backing Eich.

"There is only one permissible opinion at Mozilla, and all dissidents must be purged!" he wrote, adding:

Yep, that’s left-liberal tolerance in a nut-shell. No, he wasn’t a victim of government censorship or intimidation. He was a victim of the free market in which people can choose to express their opinions by boycotts, free speech and the like. He still has his full First Amendment rights. But what we’re talking about is the obvious and ugly intolerance of parts of the gay movement, who have reacted to years of being subjected to social obloquy by returning the favor... This is a repugnantly illiberal sentiment. It is also unbelievably stupid for the gay rights movement. You want to squander the real gains we have made by argument and engagement by becoming just as intolerant of others’ views as the Christianists? You’ve just found a great way to do this. It’s a bad, self-inflicted blow. And all of us will come to regret it.

Calls for his ouster were premised on the notion that all support for Proposition 8 was hateful, and that a CEO should be judged not just by his or her conduct in the professional realm, but also by political causes he or she supports as a private citizen.

If that attitude spreads, it will damage our society...

It isn't difficult to see the wisdom in inculcating the norm that the political and the professional are separate realms, for following it makes so many people and institutions better off in a diverse, pluralistic society. The contrary approach would certainly have a chilling effect on political speech and civic participation, as does Mozilla's behavior toward Eich...

There is very likely hypocrisy at work too. Does anyone doubt that had a business fired a CEO six years ago for making a political donation against Prop 8, liberals silent during this controversy (or supportive of the resignation) would've argued that contributions have nothing to do with a CEO's ability to do his job? They'd have called that firing an illiberal outrage, but today they're averse to vocally disagreeing with allies.

Jim Burroway of the gay advocacy and information site Box Turtle Bulletin picked up the "ability to do the job" and ran with it:

But at a time when we are demanding passage of the Employment Non-Discrmination Act so that companies can’t just up and fire LGBT employees because they don’t agree with them — as they can now in about two-thirds of our states — we need to think very long and hard about whether we should demand someone be removed from his job for exercising his constitutional rights as part of the cornerstone of our democracy: a free and fair election.

We say that LGBT people shouldn’t be fired for something that has nothing to do with their job performance. I think that principle is good enough to apply to everyone, including Eich. And there is no evidence that I can find that his donation affected his ability to do the job he was hired to do. Eich made his donation out of his own pocket. He didn’t do it on behalf of Mozilla, he didn’t do it with Mozilla funds or through a foundation sponsored by Mozilla. And he certainly didn’t own Mozilla, which is a non-profit organization. It was his own dime on his own time.

Others have gone beyond argument, though, calling for boycotts of Mozilla and its browser. The conservative Allapundit, for instance, supports gay marriage but can't abide the view that "free speech is valuable only insofar as it serves the right politics."

If you oppose gay marriage (which I do not), you should treat this as a lesson that organized economic power is really your only way to make [same sex marriage] fans think twice about purge-minded boycotts. You’re not going to talk them into an “agree to disagree” accommodation at this point; the trends in popular opinion are too far in their favor, and to many of them, opposing gay marriage is tantamount to opposing interracial marriage, i.e. a vestige of a system of persecution. Start by dropping Firefox, if you use it now, and go from there. If you don’t, this will keep happening.

The conservative activists at TruthRevolt went a step further, mirroring OKCupid's actions by blocking Firefox users to the site and displaying a message that says, in part:

Pardon this interruption of your TruthRevolt experience. Mozilla recently forced its CEO, Brendan Eich, to resign over his personal support for traditional marriage. The firing followed a vicious smear campaign against Eich by dating website OKCupid, in which OKCupid blocked Mozilla users from visiting their website.

We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access TruthRevolt, given Mozilla’s crackdown on political and religious positions held by millions of Americans.

A look through the Ars comments on previous stories about the controversy shows the same passionate divide seen more publicly in the blogosphere this week, though so far the attention has focused almost exclusively on Mozilla. It's not hard to see how similar litmus tests could spread, though. Will we soon see the day in which each faction in a political battle backs only its "own" technical products—one side using only Google, the other using only Bing—based on the personal views of the CEOs?

The online battle of ideas this week has been, in part, about whether that world would be a better one.

No, gays are not expected to marry the opposite sex instead. The "population issue" will remain the same but the economy will be worse off with gay households because it is granting an economic benefit of marriage without getting anything back in terms of the economic consequences of a growing population. Or so as this non-religious based argument against gay marriage goes.

I have no doubt that is true. But is it the tax break that go with the legal status justified in the context of society's economic interest in a reasonable population growth rate? I'm leaning no because of biology but I am open to a good rationale.

Quote:

Quote:

In other words, the economy of a country would be spending more on, commonly tax breaks, on gay households without any biological shot at getting anything in return in terms of economic benefits of a growing population.

Except, you know, stable households whose shared assets result in more comfort purchases, the steady increase of property values, the fact that rather than the state spending money on unadopted children, those couples would be able to adopt, saving the state money and spending more money to raise that child?

How is any of that going to reverse the trend of declining birth rates? How does any of that matter with society economic interest of a reasonable population growth rate?

Quote:

Quote:

Tax breaks are commonly used to encourage desired behaviour. Presumably, tax breaks related to marriage are linked with expectations of procreation and the economic advantages thereof.

Nope, procreation isn't a part of it. Pro tip: couples who can't produce kids still get marriage benefits.

For the longest time people got married to raise family with their biological 2.5 kids (see Census data decades ago). That seems to be changing demographically of course but that is the historical reason for many of these marriage related tax breaks. Good tax breaks have an ROI for the entire nation. Its not clear how to justify these marriage related tax breaks to a homosexual couple who have no shot in hell in producing 2.5 kids.

There is an increasing number of heterosexual couples with no kids. Still, society values procreation so the tax break is justified for couples who have a shot in hell in produce at least one.

I don't know about destroyed. I have not heard any argument on how extending the married legal status to homosexual couples can reverse decline birth rates in more than a handful of industrialized nations to the extent that reasonable population growth is of economic interest to them and thus deserving of the same economic benefit.

Look, these have been said many times and you continue to ignore them:

- It's not the job of gay people, married or otherwise, to reverse the decline in birth rates. Gay marriage also won't reverse global warming, paint your house, or feed your cat. That's all utterly irrelevant to the legal status of gay couples. Show me where the state demands procreation as a requirement of marriage.

- You continue to insist that the economic benefits of marriage, which as I pointed out earlier don't actually exist for many people, are linked to an expectation of procreation. At no point have you actually shown this to be true, and the fact that the same benefits are extended to married who people who can't or won't have children shows this to be utterly fallacious.

There is an increasing number of heterosexual couples with no kids. Still, society values procreation so the tax break is justified for couples who have a shot in hell in produce at least one.

If the argument is that your marriage is valid if there is "a shot in hell" that you will produce a child, I direct your attention to the many gay couples who choose to have children through artificial insemination or surrogacy. Since it's at least "a shot in hell" that any gay couple could do this, I guess the tax break is justified by your own admission.

Gay marriage has no impact on the number of babies being born. It does have an impact on births per household, an important metric in many social programs and policy. If the number of babies remain the same but the number of households increase, that means the births per household rate would have to decline: birth rate per household = (babies born) / (number of households).

Which programs, specifically, deal with babies per household as an important metric? Be specific.

Quote:

In any case the birth rate is in decline for many industrialized countries and its unclear how extending the married legal status can improve on that making the "tax expense" that go along with it unjustifiable.

Which presumes that the taxes are to promote procreation, which you still haven't demonstrated to be a fact.

Quote:

Not the same thing. Social Security is a transfer payment program that rely on a growing population of fully employed workers to support retirees. The tax code has many "spending" items in the form of deductions and credits the priorities of which could always use a good review.

True, but babies per household has no effect on this. The population must increase by a given amount (and at the right age ranges) for Social Security to work. Whether that population is spread across 100,000 families or 200,000 families doesn't make any difference.

Quote:

It's obvious because since time immemorial people got married to raise a family with biological children of their own.

Which doesn't require marriage, nor does marriage require children. Since "time immemorial", couples have been unable to produce children. In fact, the Bible has some pretty awesome things to say about it. Did you know if your brother dies without kids, it's your duty to impregnate his wife?

Quote:

This expectation goes waaaayy back to the time of dinosaurs and maybe even to before the big bang.

So God said "let there be marriage...oh wait shit, light, I meant light"?

Which creationist museum features a Dromaeosaurus in a wedding gown?

Quote:

That's right because its reasonable to expect heterosexual couples can have children and that's all that matters.

No, what matters to law in the Constitution. The fun little document you're advocating for violating.

Quote:

Marriages without kids is a phenomenon that was been on the increase relatively recently.

Tell that to the Bible.

Quote:

Nevertheless, procreation is still something society values so the legal status and the tax expense that go with it remain well justified to those that can procreate. There is no Fourth Amendment issue with that.

That's because the 4th Amendment deals with unreasonable searches and seizures.

Quote:

I think there is a typo I can't figure out what you are trying to say. If you are saying some gay marriages result in children, that would be awesome news.

Yeah, in vitro, cool stuff, check it out.

Quote:

I don't know about destroyed. I have not heard any argument on how extending the married legal status to homosexual couples can reverse decline birth rates in more than a handful of industrialized nations to the extent that reasonable population growth is of economic interest to them and thus deserving of the same economic benefit.

Good thing that the right of marriage doesn't depend on such things. Otherwise, we'd be able to outlaw women getting married past a certain age, people unable to procreate (or who choose not to) would similarly be able to be denied marriage.

Quote:

As I've said, this best non-religious based argument against gay marriage I have heard has many counter arguments. My favorite is immigration will cause it to be a wash. And it seems reasonable until one notes that immigrants having babies account for a lot of the current birth rate per household. I've seen data for all these about ten years or so ago.

Your favorite argument is actually a great argument for immigration (although the proper metric, economically speaking, isn't population growth, but the percentage of the population that is of working age. It is not, however, relevant at all to the discussion of marriage rights.

It's obvious because since time immemorial people got married to raise a family with biological children of their own.

Which doesn't require marriage, nor does marriage require children. Since "time immemorial", couples have been unable to produce children. In fact, the Bible has some pretty awesome things to say about it. Did you know if your brother dies without kids, it's your duty to impregnate his wife?

Onan was awesome. He died by lightning bolt just so he could say "Screw this, I want to masturbate."

It's obvious because since time immemorial people got married to raise a family with biological children of their own.

Which doesn't require marriage, nor does marriage require children. Since "time immemorial", couples have been unable to produce children. In fact, the Bible has some pretty awesome things to say about it. Did you know if your brother dies without kids, it's your duty to impregnate his wife?

Onan was awesome. He died by lightning bolt just so he could say "Screw this, I want to masturbate."

I have no doubt that is true. But is it the tax break that go with the legal status justified in the context of society's economic interest in a reasonable population growth rate? I'm leaning no because of biology but I am open to a good rationale.

The tax break has nothing to do with birth rate. This is a red herring of your own invention. Birth rate increasing isn't beneficial, in the long term, to the country. The system designed requires increasing amount of people of working age, not of births themselves.

Economically speaking, the tax benefits promote social stability, increased home ownership, increased spending, decreasing amounts of STDs (good for the health care system as well as for everyone), decreases government expenditures...I could go on like this for awhile.

It should suffice to say that your economic rationale is little more than hiding behind a single metric, one that's not actually the proper metric to look at, and which presupposes that the current system is the proper one. (Hint: it isn't).

Quote:

How is any of that going to reverse the trend of declining birth rates? How does any of that matter with society economic interest of a reasonable population growth rate?

Again, your presupposition that birth rate is the appropriate metric is an odd fixation. Your attachment to it seems like little more than a desperate grasp of someone who wishes to hold onto their views but whose traditional arguments have been torn to shreds. You're loathe to give up the one argument you thought that might work.

Sadly, it's relatively evident you never studied much economics. While I make my living in law, my undergraduate work was in political science and economics. From your current diatribes, it's relatively evident you're ill equipped for a fact-based analysis on this issue.

Quote:

For the longest time people got married to raise family with their biological 2.5 kids (see Census data decades ago). That seems to be changing demographically of course but that is the historical reason for many of these marriage related tax breaks.

No, those would be the separate tax breaks for having children. Let's see, you have the child credit, Coverdell Education Savings accounts that are tax free, day camps that can be paid with pretax income, the dependent-care credit, earned income tax credit (for low wage workers, but with a bonus for people with kids), Kiddie tax, lifetime learning credit, newborn tax credit, state college-savings plans...again, this goes on for awhile.

You know what's pretty awesome about all of these programs? NONE of them require you to be married. These benefits are for either the birth parents, or to their legal guardians. In fact, there are specific provisions about foster parents and child support-- both situations where both birth parents are NOT married and living with the child.

Quote:

Good tax breaks have an ROI for the entire nation. Its not clear how to justify these marriage related tax breaks to a homosexual couple who have no shot in hell in producing 2.5 kids.

The paucity of your logic has been detailed above. Marriage benefits aren't for kids, which is why we give child tax credits separately, and give marriage benefits to people without kids.

Quote:

There is an increasing number of heterosexual couples with no kids.

Citation needed.

Quote:

Still, society values procreation so the tax break is justified for couples who have a shot in hell in produce at least one.

Sorry, marriage benefits aren't a part of child benefits. Two whole separate tax systems. Thanks for playing though, it's been fun.

It's interesting to see some of you argue so strongly in favor of Mozilla expressing their corporate values, when so many would be perfectly happy to deny same to the leadership at Hobby Lobby.

Personally, I'm ok with corporations having their own values and beliefs, and prefer to have people and entities express their views in public ways so I can decide how to interact with them. I previously thought I understood what Mozilla stood for, but now understand they have a different definition of "openness", "opportunity" and "everyone" than I. Fortunately, like the racist who shouts epithets instead of undercutting minorities in secret, Mozilla made certain to demonstrate their values publicly and I can decide whether to support or not support them going forward.

It's interesting to see some of you argue so strongly in favor of Mozilla expressing their corporate values, when so many would be perfectly happy to deny same to the leadership at Hobby Lobby.

Personally, I'm ok with corporations having their own values and beliefs, and prefer to have people and entities express their views in public ways so I can decide how to interact with them. I previously thought I understood what Mozilla stood for, but now understand they have a different definition of "openness", "opportunity" and "everyone" than I. Fortunately, like the racist who shouts epithets instead of undercutting minorities in secret, Mozilla made certain to demonstrate their values publicly and I can decide whether to support or not support them going forward.

The problem with Hobby Lobby is not that the owners have views. The problem, as with Eich, is that they are trying to have their discriminatory views written into law. Eich is entitled to his view, just as Hobby Lobby's owners are entitled to think that everyone who has sex out of wedlock is terrible, but they are not entitled to have the law changed because of their religion.

Of course there would be less births. This will be interesting to see pan out in census data over the years as more states allow gay marriage. Basic understanding of biology is all the mechanism you need consider.

From what I understand, civil unions are enough to achieve parity with married but childless couples; leaving the economic benefits of marriage to those with a biological shot at contributing to society's economic interest in a reasonable population rate of growth.

I don't understand the "of course" assertion. Could you explain?

Its just math and biology. Gay households can't birth babies so the birth rate per household would have to decline even if the same number of babies are being born. "per household" is how a lot of economic statistics are reckoned on which many social policies are based (Census data, for example).

Are you assuming that if they can't get married gay people will just turn straight and have opposite sex relationships? Is it possible that you are that utterly stupid? Or are you just trolling?

No, gays are not expected to marry the opposite sex instead. The "population issue" will remain the same but the economy will be worse off with gay households because it is granting an economic benefit of marriage without getting anything back in terms of the economic consequences of a growing population. Or so as this non-religious based argument against gay marriage goes.

In other words, the economy of a country would be spending more on, commonly tax breaks, on gay households without any biological shot at getting anything in return in terms of economic benefits of a growing population.

Tax breaks are commonly used to encourage desired behaviour. Presumably, tax breaks related to marriage are linked with expectations of procreation and the economic advantages thereof.

Have you looked at a married, childless couple's taxes lately? I certainly have, and I'd love to know where this supposed benefit is.

The Constitution is dead. The "law" as it is now is whatever judges say it is.

Yeah, what kind of stupid document would create a system of judges whose sole job was to interpret the Constitution and test the laws of the land according to their interpretations of it, which necessarily will evolve over time?

Then you need to find some evidence that homosexuals can't raise children just as well as straight people.

Any dimwit can see that children brought up by their own mother and father are healthier than any other delinquent upbringing. You need the influence of both masculine and feminine norms for a healthy mind. It's absolutely absurd that we live in an era where queers have become so aggressive even have the front to question this for no other reason than in order to feed their own selfish narcissism.

FTR, the "Family Research Council" (FRC) is not an unbiased, third-party, science-based source of information, but a conservative "christian" group and lobbying organization. That's pretty much as far from scienctific reseasrch as one can get. As such, their "research" is as sound as quicksand. Just like your mindlessly regurgitated comment.

And since you bring up "healthy minds", I think it's important for you, as a thinking, emotional human being, to reflect upon the reason why you feel this way; why you "believe"; and how it is that you feel entitled (other than your own, narcissistic, over-developed sense of self-righteousness and importance) to judge another person's life, emotional being, and abilities. When you were young, naive, impressionable, did you simply conjure this idea on your own, through your own experience, perceived by your own senses, and conjured as a result of your own thinking and deduction; or, did someone, perhaps a parent, guardian, family member, or someone else influence your thinking?

"Any dimwit" can believe; but, it's any entirely different matter to see, understand, and conclude for one's self.

You're assuming that any child in a family with a mother and father is automatically delinquant, or that one who is from such a family automatically isn't.

I can assure you that a lot of kids from dysfunctional family have both a father and a mother to blame for their broken family dynamics.

Please see the EDIT comment in my post for clarification. I think we have a misunderstanding happening and I take responsibility for that miscommunication. Again, please see my comment's EDIT. Thanks.

I'm stating a fact. New Testament marriage has always been a contractual relationship between a man and a woman. Just like you don't get to call a fish a pig, you don't get to call a relationship between two men 'marriage', and force me to recognize it as such.

Several problems with your assertions.

1. The thing in the bible was not called 'marriage' it was called something that wasn't English.2. Christians did not invent unions of various kinds so they do not claim sole ownership of the word marriage.3. Why yes, I do get to call a relationship between two men 'marriage' and force you to recognize it, and it's looking like society is going to drag you kicking and screaming into the 21st century and beyond whether you like it or not, if recent trends are any indication. If not specifically you, certainly your children or grandchildren when they become adults. Your life is going to get interesting when you find yourself in the position of being someone's embarrassingly homophobic grandparent.

1. Now you're just being pedantic.2. In Western civilization, New Testament marriage, recognizing the nature of men and women, has been the standard for 2,000 years.3. Don't be surprised then, when you're dragged "kicking and screaming" back into the closet, as is the case in places like Russia and Uganda, as has been the case historically, and will likely be the case when this experiment called the "United States of America" ceases to exist as a political entity in the next couple of decades or so.

About 77 percent of Americans identify themselves as some form of Christian.

About 23 percent of Americans identify themselves as not some form of Christian.

"Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it." -- Leo Tolstoy

"When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind." -- James Madison, Federalist #10

The Constitution has been dead ever since FDR. The current American political system operates on pure power games.

You do realize that the Madison quote reflects the founders' interpretation of the constitution, right? The interpretation that I can only you assume you wish were still in place.

Or are you saying that you're glad the constitution is dead because it's death is what you believe will allow you to impose your prejudiced views onto a minority?

The power of the Federal government reached its maximum plausible Constitutional extent in the 1920s. The New Deal vastly expended Federal power well beyond plain constitutional limits. The Bill of Rights fell in the decades following.

I'm stating a fact. New Testament marriage has always been a contractual relationship between a man and a woman. Just like you don't get to call a fish a pig, you don't get to call a relationship between two men 'marriage', and force me to recognize it as such.

Several problems with your assertions.

1. The thing in the bible was not called 'marriage' it was called something that wasn't English.2. Christians did not invent unions of various kinds so they do not claim sole ownership of the word marriage.3. Why yes, I do get to call a relationship between two men 'marriage' and force you to recognize it, and it's looking like society is going to drag you kicking and screaming into the 21st century and beyond whether you like it or not, if recent trends are any indication. If not specifically you, certainly your children or grandchildren when they become adults. Your life is going to get interesting when you find yourself in the position of being someone's embarrassingly homophobic grandparent.

Gay marriage is an anthropological regression. That's why other countries in the world have enacted laws to protect their populations from the spread of this deception.

There exists no "right" to redefine marriage, and force others to recognize it.

So you agree that Prop. 8 was unconstitutional, then? Good! Glad we're on the same page!

Proposition 8 was in response to your side redefining marriage. Try to keep up.

No, it was in response to the Supreme Court of the State of California deciding that your definition of "constitutional" was wrong. Which is why your side had to amend the state constitution to change the definition of marriage.

I'm stating a fact. New Testament marriage has always been a contractual relationship between a man and a woman. Just like you don't get to call a fish a pig, you don't get to call a relationship between two men 'marriage', and force me to recognize it as such.

Several problems with your assertions.

1. The thing in the bible was not called 'marriage' it was called something that wasn't English.2. Christians did not invent unions of various kinds so they do not claim sole ownership of the word marriage.3. Why yes, I do get to call a relationship between two men 'marriage' and force you to recognize it, and it's looking like society is going to drag you kicking and screaming into the 21st century and beyond whether you like it or not, if recent trends are any indication. If not specifically you, certainly your children or grandchildren when they become adults. Your life is going to get interesting when you find yourself in the position of being someone's embarrassingly homophobic grandparent.

Gay marriage is an anthropological regression. That's why other countries in the world have enacted laws to protect their populations from the spread of this deception.

Wait, I thought straight only marriage was a sacred tradition dating back thousands of years? You can't have it both ways.

The Constitution is dead. The "law" as it is now is whatever judges say it is.

Yeah, what kind of stupid document would create a system of judges whose sole job was to interpret the Constitution and test the laws of the land according to their interpretations of it, which necessarily will evolve over time?

Oh wait, that would be the Constitution.

Strictly speaking, the Constitution never explicitly gave the courts that power, and certainly didn't give the courts the power to reinterpret the Constitution.

I'm stating a fact. New Testament marriage has always been a contractual relationship between a man and a woman. Just like you don't get to call a fish a pig, you don't get to call a relationship between two men 'marriage', and force me to recognize it as such.

Several problems with your assertions.

1. The thing in the bible was not called 'marriage' it was called something that wasn't English.2. Christians did not invent unions of various kinds so they do not claim sole ownership of the word marriage.3. Why yes, I do get to call a relationship between two men 'marriage' and force you to recognize it, and it's looking like society is going to drag you kicking and screaming into the 21st century and beyond whether you like it or not, if recent trends are any indication. If not specifically you, certainly your children or grandchildren when they become adults. Your life is going to get interesting when you find yourself in the position of being someone's embarrassingly homophobic grandparent.

Gay marriage is an anthropological regression. That's why other countries in the world have enacted laws to protect their populations from the spread of this deception.

Don't you just love how most gay marriage opponents claim they're trying to stop us because marriage is "an ancient tradition", yet if gay marriage is ancient it has to be stopped because it's "regression"?

Then you need to find some evidence that homosexuals can't raise children just as well as straight people.

Any dimwit can see that children brought up by their own mother and father are healthier than any other delinquent upbringing. You need the influence of both masculine and feminine norms for a healthy mind. It's absolutely absurd that we live in an era where queers have become so aggressive even have the front to question this for no other reason than in order to feed their own selfish narcissism.

FTR, the "Family Research Council" (FRC) is not an unbiased, third-party, science-based source of information, but a conservative "christian" group and lobbying organization. That's pretty much as far from scienctific reseasrch as one can get. As such, their "research" is as sound as quicksand. Just like your mindlessly regurgitated comment.

And since you bring up "healthy minds", I think it's important for you, as a thinking, emotional human being, to reflect upon the reason why you feel this way; why you "believe"; and how it is that you feel entitled (other than your own, narcissistic, over-developed sense of self-righteousness and importance) to judge another person's life, emotional being, and abilities. When you were young, naive, impressionable, did you simply conjure this idea on your own, through your own experience, perceived by your own senses, and conjured as a result of your own thinking and deduction; or, did someone, perhaps a parent, guardian, family member, or someone else influence your thinking?

"Any dimwit" can believe; but, it's any entirely different matter to see, understand, and conclude for one's self.

Sure, but with married heterosexuals, society can reasonably expect that a child is possible. With homosexuals, no chance in a million years (when biological evolution has its chance to weigh in on the matter) is known upfront.

Apart from gay women who use a sperm donor and gay men who use a surrogate mother, there is, indeed, no chance in a million years (apart from the potential of medical advances that will allow a man to become pregnant, which science will probably not take a million years).

There exists no "right" to redefine marriage, and force others to recognize it.

So you agree that Prop. 8 was unconstitutional, then? Good! Glad we're on the same page!

Proposition 8 was in response to your side redefining marriage. Try to keep up.

No, it was in response to the Supreme Court of the State of California deciding that your definition of "constitutional" was wrong. Which is why your side had to amend the state constitution to change the definition of marriage.

Proposition 8 merely reiterated the long standing definition of marriage; that being a relationship between a man and a woman. You don't get to redefine the plain meaning of words.

The Constitution is dead. The "law" as it is now is whatever judges say it is.

Yeah, what kind of stupid document would create a system of judges whose sole job was to interpret the Constitution and test the laws of the land according to their interpretations of it, which necessarily will evolve over time?

Oh wait, that would be the Constitution.

Strictly speaking, the Constitution never explicitly gave the courts that power, and certainly didn't give the courts the power to reinterpret the Constitution.

Interpreting the Constitution is exactly what we have a Supreme Court for!

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;"

There you go. Explicit reference to the judiciary resolving Constitutional cases, separately from laws enacted by the legislature. Do they not teach civics in high school anymore?

I'm stating a fact. New Testament marriage has always been a contractual relationship between a man and a woman. Just like you don't get to call a fish a pig, you don't get to call a relationship between two men 'marriage', and force me to recognize it as such.

Several problems with your assertions.

1. The thing in the bible was not called 'marriage' it was called something that wasn't English.2. Christians did not invent unions of various kinds so they do not claim sole ownership of the word marriage.3. Why yes, I do get to call a relationship between two men 'marriage' and force you to recognize it, and it's looking like society is going to drag you kicking and screaming into the 21st century and beyond whether you like it or not, if recent trends are any indication. If not specifically you, certainly your children or grandchildren when they become adults. Your life is going to get interesting when you find yourself in the position of being someone's embarrassingly homophobic grandparent.

Gay marriage is an anthropological regression. That's why other countries in the world have enacted laws to protect their populations from the spread of this deception.

Don't you just love how most gay marriage opponents claim they're trying to stop us because marriage is "an ancient tradition", yet if gay marriage is ancient it has to be stopped because it's "regression"?

Mike1211 and infinitycoin seem to do a lot of those sorts of things. Just look through the past comment threads related to the Mozilla-Eich issue.

There exists no "right" to redefine marriage, and force others to recognize it.

So you agree that Prop. 8 was unconstitutional, then? Good! Glad we're on the same page!

Proposition 8 was in response to your side redefining marriage. Try to keep up.

No, it was in response to the Supreme Court of the State of California deciding that your definition of "constitutional" was wrong. Which is why your side had to amend the state constitution to change the definition of marriage.

Proposition 8 merely reiterated the long standing definition of marriage; that being a relationship between a man and a woman. You don't get to redefine the plain meaning of words.

Why not? You guys do all the time, abortion is murder, guns don't kill people, and beavers are a kind of fish.

There exists no "right" to redefine marriage, and force others to recognize it.

So you agree that Prop. 8 was unconstitutional, then? Good! Glad we're on the same page!

Proposition 8 was in response to your side redefining marriage. Try to keep up.

No, it was in response to the Supreme Court of the State of California deciding that your definition of "constitutional" was wrong. Which is why your side had to amend the state constitution to change the definition of marriage.

Proposition 8 merely reiterated the long standing definition of marriage; that being a relationship between a man and a woman. You don't get to redefine the plain meaning of words.

As human beings, charged with our own development of language and concepts of law, we are absolutely empowered to analyze, change, and adapt our definition of our own words, our perceptions of ourselves, our beliefs, and our thinking. These things are not divinely codified or even [necessarily] divinely endorsed or denounced.

You are absolutely entitled to your beliefs and thinking, but your denial of how the the universe, the human race, society, and language are not static and eternal, don't appear to make that thinking of yours evolutionarily viable. IOW, believe what you will. Be an evolutionary luddite. Live in your static and eternal universe. Those are your rights. The rest of us will simply move on because your perceptions of all that is around you makes you unfit for the future. It's as simple as that: Adapt or make yourself obsolete. The choice is yours.

The Constitution is dead. The "law" as it is now is whatever judges say it is.

Yeah, what kind of stupid document would create a system of judges whose sole job was to interpret the Constitution and test the laws of the land according to their interpretations of it, which necessarily will evolve over time?

Oh wait, that would be the Constitution.

Strictly speaking, the Constitution never explicitly gave the courts that power, and certainly didn't give the courts the power to reinterpret the Constitution.

Interpreting the Constitution is exactly what we have a Supreme Court for!

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;"

There you go. Explicit reference to the judiciary resolving Constitutional cases, separately from laws enacted by the legislature. Do they not teach civics in high school anymore?

Actually, there is nothing there granting the courts the ability to nullify acts of Congress, nor any power to nullify acts of state legislatures, nor any power to nullify voter referendums or parts of a state constitution, and certainly not any power to reinterpret the text of the Constitution itself.

You guys, psd was already on my Ignore list because of exactly this kind of impenetrable stupidity. I unhid him to look at that ONE comment and see if I had perhaps judged him too harshly. What I found only confirmed my decision. There is nothing you can say that will change his mind. Facts do not matter. Logic and reason do not matter. psd is going to continue arguing that black is white until he's green in the face. Everything he's said has been refuted already, thanks. Please don't waste your time any more.

What a load of tripe from the newsies. When a low-rung employee can be fired over a facebook picture where he/she is holding a beer because it reflects badly on the company, you argue that a CEO shouldn't be fired for public actions like that?

2. In Western civilization, New Testament marriage, recognizing the nature of men and women, has been the standard for 2,000 years.

Quote:

In ancient Rome, marriage was a civil affair governed by imperial law. But when the empire collapsed, in the 5th century, church courts took over and elevated marriage to a holy union. As the church's power grew through the Middle Ages, so did its influence over marriage. In 1215, marriage was declared one of the church's seven sacraments, alongside rites like baptism and penance. But it was only in the 16th century that the church decreed that weddings be performed in public, by a priest, and before witnesses.

It was a civil affair 1600 years ago. It was only declared sacred 800 years ago. And a priest was only required by the church 500 years ago. How has that been 2000 years?

BTW, Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian in 1306. He also married his 5 year old daughter Simonis to King Stefan Milutin (age 65) in 1298.

There exists no "right" to redefine marriage, and force others to recognize it.

So you agree that Prop. 8 was unconstitutional, then? Good! Glad we're on the same page!

Proposition 8 was in response to your side redefining marriage. Try to keep up.

No, it was in response to the Supreme Court of the State of California deciding that your definition of "constitutional" was wrong. Which is why your side had to amend the state constitution to change the definition of marriage.

Proposition 8 merely reiterated the long standing definition of marriage; that being a relationship between a man and a woman. You don't get to redefine the plain meaning of words.

Why not? You guys do all the time, abortion is murder, guns don't kill people, and beavers are a kind of fish.

1. Abortion is an euphemism. Unborn children are human, therefore, they have rights, including the right to life.2. I have never witnessed a gun jumping off a table and firing itself. Perhaps you have?3. So because some Church functionary 400 years ago decided for the sake of convenience that beaver meat was permissible to eat on Lent, it is therefore valid to redefine marriage?

The Constitution is dead. The "law" as it is now is whatever judges say it is.

Yeah, what kind of stupid document would create a system of judges whose sole job was to interpret the Constitution and test the laws of the land according to their interpretations of it, which necessarily will evolve over time?

Oh wait, that would be the Constitution.

Strictly speaking, the Constitution never explicitly gave the courts that power, and certainly didn't give the courts the power to reinterpret the Constitution.

Interpreting the Constitution is exactly what we have a Supreme Court for!

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;"

There you go. Explicit reference to the judiciary resolving Constitutional cases, separately from laws enacted by the legislature. Do they not teach civics in high school anymore?

Actually, there is nothing there granting the courts the ability to nullify acts of Congress, nor any power to nullify acts of state legislatures, nor any power to nullify voter referendums or parts of a state constitution, and certainly not any power to reinterpret the text of the Constitution itself.

I'm curious... if you don't think the Supreme Court does any of those things, then what exactly is it you think their role actually is?

However, I have seen plenty of mean, spiteful gay people too. Just because you are LBGT or pro-LBGT doesn't give you a free pass to act like an ass or restrict the rights of others, no matter how righteous your cause might be.

It's funny because nobody from the LGBT/LGBT-friendly side restricted Eich's rights in any way. But Eich restricted theirs.

There exists no "right" to redefine marriage, and force others to recognize it.

God, you really can't see how utterly ignorant that sounds, can you. Is prejudice really that blinding?

I'm stating a fact. New Testament marriage has always been a contractual relationship between a man and a woman. Just like you don't get to call a fish a pig, you don't get to call a relationship between two men 'marriage', and force me to recognize it as such.

For better or for worse, this debacle is changing the view of Mozilla as a neutral organization and changing it to a pro LGBT image. Some will leave the community perhaps, and others will flock to it because of this. For certain it will be harder for Mozilla to claim to be unbiased in anything they do going forward.